Have fast greens "jumped the shark"?

[Mike_Cirba]

Has the idea of having ultra-fast greens to provide some type of challenge to touring professionals become obsolete and irrelevant?

With green speeds supposedly around 13 this past weekend at MV, I can't think of anyone out there who looked to be having the least difficulty.

How many balls did you see creep several feet past the hole?   I can't think of a one.

[Brent Hutto]

Mike,

Assuming we're talking interesting greens rather than dead flat ones...

If they are fast enough that their speed per se is a challenge (as opposed to the speed eliminating areas of the green as unpinnable) then there will be certain putts under certain conditions that will be "unfair" and the players will howl. There just isn't much working room between fast enough to make a Tour pro sweat over ball creep and so fast that the ball won't stop period on some of the greens.

No matter how good the quality of the grass and how intensive the attention they receive, there has to be some wiggle room over the course of four 10-12 hour days and 400+ rounds played. It seems like the players have adapted their putting games to handle any speeds that don't run the danger of going "over the top" at some point during the tournament (cf. Shinnecock, Olympic).

[Brad Klein]

Mike,

good question. The problem (or apparent ease) with those greens at Muirfield Village wasn't just that the speed was so fast, but that all of the greens werere exactly the same speed and so once the players got used to the speed they just put it on (light) cruise control. The two biggest agronomic developmenrts in recent years are 1) fast, smooth greens; and 2) the ability to calibrate conditioning/mowing/rolling/drainage so that the variance from one green to the next on the same golf course is a matter of a few inches rather than a foot or more.

[Kirk Gill]

Mr. Klein - that's a very interesting notion to me, that achieving consistency of speed across all greens on a course could have the effect of making play significantly easier, regardless of how fast the greens are. This begs the question - does an architect specifically attempt to design a course (and do builders actually build a course) with that kind of consistency in mind? Is this something to be sought after, and fought for?

Alternately, do designers ever design with the specific intent that one green will be faster than another? Or even if they do not intend for there to be speed differences, do they know that some greens, because of their location on the land, will tend towards being faster or slower?

[Rich Goodale]

I agree with Brad.  Ernie Els said the same thing to a friend of mine who was caddying for him a few years ago.

[Edward Coombes]

My angle on this is that rather than speed alone, more emphasis needs to go into the design of an optimum angle of approach (including some fairway width) to a suitably tilted/angled/guarded/contoured green complex. I believe that the greens on the PGA Tours should be firmer and the surrounds
more compliant with the links style runoff in appropriate areas to add
dimension to the short game and to the approach game. The pro players of today are in most part very good flop shot players, but nothing in my opinion beats having to produce a shot of feel, imagination and variety of option from around the green particularly in high pressure situations.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I can think of a few that crept past the hole unexpectedly but generally where really fast greens like that get Tour players is trying to recover back onto greens from the wrong spot. You certainly saw plenty of recoveries where the player couldn't stop the ball near the hole.

But the reality is fast greens like those at Muirfield Village (the way the internal contours are designed and constructed) don't really bother those guys in putting.

Another reason those Muirfield greens didn't bother those guys is they weren't just fast they were basically otherwordly true---eg the ball stayed on its line almost perfectly. And when you have that combo for players like that they are going to make a lot of putts despite high green speed. They only really struggle when greens basically knock their putts off line for some reason.

[Edward Coombes]

....or maybe Jack needs to get some sheep grazing on them there greens?

[Tony Ristola]

Brad, spot on. In the old days greens had variation, from hole to hole and within a green. Could this be another factor of the diminishing Veterans advantage on the PGA Tour? With conditions  so similar (due to improved construction and maintenance) from course to course, a big factor in course knowledge is scrubbed from the equation?

Perhaps they should have a softness quotient for putters and balls.  If combined the quotient is exceeded (on the soft side), they player is DQ'd.    

[Jim Bearden]

As you know I have an affinity to CPC and the same green speeds all the holes play very different some are easy and others are very hard so unless all holes are very sloped then the issue is not an issue.

[Mike_Cirba]

Thanks for all of your answers and I think the consistency and smoothness is a huge factor, as well as the wild card, lack of poa annua in the MV greens

However, what do we think this means for the mother of all fast greens, Oakmont?

Will we see the same issues there?  Is there sufficient poa or other grasses in the Oakmont greens these days to create a bit of inconsistency and/or grain that could make putting less aerodynamically sound??  

[Dan Herrmann]

Mike - another super thread..

I don't know about Oakmont, but I do know that the old films of the bermuda greens at The Masters show them to be pretty difficult.  But then again, maybe they just didn't putt as well.

[C. Squier]

I think there are at least 2 more variables that need to be considered:

Interior undulations & difficulty through the green.

Greens could stimp out at 20 (fascisiously speaking), but if the pins are cut with 400 sq ft of relatively flat area around them, no pro will have a tremendously difficult time.  

Pros who play on the weekend (especially in the majors) are the ones who managed their misses the best.  Missing on the low side of the buried elephant and/or long siding themselves will negate the severity of the green speeds.  The speeds at Oakmont will be magnified because the boys will have a much harder time managing their misses.

Plus I really think putting stats start and stop within 5 feet.  

CPS

[mike_malone]

 Mike,

   When they said the greens were A1/A4 creeping bentgrass I thought about how the planting of that variety to replace the poa/bent mix we had at Rolling Green made the greens putt easier. My guess was that the poa had more resistance to it.

    I understand that Merion used somewhere around five different types of bent which probably makes their greens have a subtle variety.

[redanman]

Bring back contour and the speeds will follow.

I find ultra slow greens the hardest to putt, always have, speed is just getting used to it.

Speed?

Ho-hum.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I heard from someone who would definitely know that the poa at Oakmont they have totally under control, but that was a few weeks ago. I expect the greens will be excellent for the Open and Zimmers is really on top of his game.

Slow greens? Frankly I can't imagine anything I'd hate worse on a golf course. I think that would be a real bore. Well designed greens at a real 10-11 I think just require a whole lot of imagination and that's fun to use.

[Tom Zeni]

If you're talking Oakmont grass, what better idea than to read the June 3rd Post-Gazette article from the man in charge of said greens and what they're like.

It was amazing to me how close Oakmont's greens are cut.
30/320th of one inch says the article.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07154/791218-382.stm

[Paul Richards]

I feel this issue is just what occurred at Medinah for last falls PGA.

Rees leveled the greens, making them flatter, with the intent purpose of being able to run them at really high speeds.

The weather didn't cooperate, the greens were slower than they'd have liked, and the scores were low.

Muirfield demonstrated that this game-plan is flawed.  Fast greens with no movement are no deterrent to PGA pros.

These guys are good.


On the other hand, fast greens with some movement could be a very different story.....

[Rick Shefchik]

I've already experienced the "need for speed" at the club I joined this spring. Many members were complaining from the first month of the season that the greens weren't fast enough -- yet this is an older course (original 9 built in 1925 or so) with small, sloped greens, many of which have nearly unpinable portions if the greens get too fast.

I fear that the same thing that happened at Medina will eventually happen at my club -- the members will continue to demand faster greens until the money is raised to flatten the greens.

Give me character and slope over speed any day.

[Jon Wiggett]

Rick,

generally whining members just need something to complain about and are usually in the minority. If you pander to them they just become even worse. The club should ignore them (no, they won't go away but neither will they stop moaning if you give in) Such changes to a course as in Medina are usually driven by the misguided notion that the course must be improved to hold certain events.

[Scott Witter]

Brad's point is acknowledged, but this 'condition' doesn't occur everywhere and it completely depends on the ability, manpower, resources and budget of the superintendent (their personal interest as well), their crew and the owner to support the above with needed $ to do so.

Consistency has always been at the forefront of the super's and the golfers, whether or not it is equipment calibration, chemical control, human skills, what have you, but unless the commitment and attention can be afforded, consistency may be but a dream for many facilities.

It is not possible, nor realistic for achitect's to think they can control the consistency of how a green will roll/putt...they are not the one caring for them after construction.  Many do have a say in the grass varieties, rootzones, etc, but this is like saying a house builder has control of the fixture surfaces and counter top material based on the concrete foundatin he has built.

[redanman]

Slow greens? Frankly I can't imagine anything I'd hate worse on a golf course.

Q.E.D.  

[Tom Zeni]

Personally, I enjoy fast greens if only becase it takes out the "speed" factor in putting. Knowing the ball is going to reach the hole, I can concentrate on the line of the putt and not the line plus how firm it must be hit. It also makes it easier for your putter to say online through the putt.

[JESII]

Fast, and ultra-fast greens have the ability to challenge players as far back as the tee, while slow greens do not. Slow greens are more difficult for really good putter inside of 10 feet because slow is usually synonymous with slightly less true, but that is the only place...

Where this argument changes is when comprimised green contours enter...to strive for greens speeds beyond what your green complexes can handle seems misguided.

I play at a well regarded William Flynn course that hosts a decent regional amateur tournament every year, when we get these greens to 11 feet it is playable, but very challenging. The number of hole locations shrinks dramatically as compared to day in and day out putting of 9.5 feet or so. It is fine for a two or three day event. Combined with a couple of other club events, there is probably reason to try to get the greens that speed on about 10 or 12 days per year, and there are substantial hole locations for that limited exposure.    

I can say however that the front third of three or four of our greens have become unplayable** over the course of 10 - 15 years due to "expected" speeds, and my personla opinion is that finding a way to play those areas at 10 - 11 feet seems a better solution than keeping all of the greens at 8 - 9 feet so those areas are playable again.

**Note: each of those greens are accessible from in front so it is not a requirement to carry the ball to the hole and hope for the best...

[Ray Tennenbaum]

Bring back contour and the speeds will follow.

I find ultra slow greens the hardest to putt, always have, speed is just getting used to it.

Speed?

Ho-hum.

I played Dyker Beach for the first time today, which naturally has greens that are very slow -- ridiculously slow, maybe like around 5-6? -- but also ridiculously sloped.  I imagine Bendelow or Van Kleek didn't have quite that much "character" in mind -- there may not be a golf course in the world that has seen more tons of topdressing.  

anyway, it made for an intriguing challenge.  there were some hilarious pin placements, atop little peaks, which it doesn't matter how slow they're playing, are really tough to get to.  on several occasions, my approach came to rest partway up a rather steep slope -- which not only made it hard to gauge the firmness I needed, but actually forced me to consider whether the ball would tend to draw.  on the second hole, with the pin atop the back tier above a big crease, I was so anxious that my ball was about to move at address that I creamed it and wound up four-putting my way to a double.  

I came across something else that made me think.  17 is a nice little uphill par-5, not very long, but after a barely adequate drive my 3-wood was a layup, which ended up about 80 yards short.  the ball bounced ran into a little shelf on the left side of the fairway and vanished.  when I got to it, it was sitting up on somewhat shaggy fairway, giving me a downhill lie to a steeply elevated green -- something you'll never see on modern courses maintained to club standards.

just because technology makes things possible, does that make those things necessary?